[Free]

Playing a standard version of 2/1GF, you hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

The auction starts:
1♣ - pass - 1♥ - pass
???

What do you bid?

[Walddk]

2♣. I do not reverse with a 16 count and a singleton in partner's suit. If responder can't bid over 2♣, we are unlikely to have missed a game.

If the response had been 1♠, however, I would reverse into 2♦.

Roland

[Halo]

2C for the reasons already stated.

[Gpm_bg]

first of all why not 1♦opening ?
But with the already bidded 1♣->1♥ i'm agree with 2♣ continue, which could hold more then 1NT (2♣ not guaranteed 2+cards in ♥ in contrast of 1NT rebid)

[000002]

with this moderate hand ,probably 1♠ is an acceptable rebid.compare with 2♣ or 3♣ reopen,i circa like 1♠ for its more flexibility than others .



regards 000002

[Codo]

I would make it as Roland... for obvious reasons

[Apollo81]

I'd reverse, but I wouldn't without the ♠10.

[pclayton]

This isn't your average boring 16 count. With the exception of a stiff heart, the minor suit holdings are primo. Boring 8 counts by pard will result in a spread 3N. K and R calls it 18.5.

I can see upgrading this to a 2N rebid, but 2♦ doesn't promise any more strength.

Over 2♥ and 2♠ (signoff), I'll rebid 2N. Over 2N, I'd probably pattern out with 3♠. Over 3♣ and 3♦ (forcing), I'll also try 3♠, which be a probe for 3N since I'm not bidding it myself.

[brianshark]

I'm in agreement with the reversers. I think the hand is good enough in spite of the heart singleton.

[P_Marlowe]

2D, but I play fairly light reverses, and a
reverse does not promise a rebid.

If you play the style, that a reverse does promise
a rebid, you have to bid 2C, since over 2H your
are dead.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

I reverse. The club suit is excellent, and the J10x of spades is nice.

Peter

[neilkaz]

pbleighton, on Jan 17 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

I reverse. The club suit is excellent, and the J10x of spades is nice.

Peter

We are in complete agreement and the ♦ are also nice.

[kenrexford]

My option is 1♠, but this is admittedly a situation where partnership discussion is critical, and I have discussed this situation with most partners.

The decision we reached was based upon concerns that 1NT is bad with a stiff heart, that 2♦ way overstaes the strength, especially considering the high maximum range when 2♣ on a minor two-suiter is so unappealing, and that 1NT far understates the strength.

1♠, on the other hand, is a call that is expected to have this strength as a possibility. If the 3145 pattern is allowed, then avenues to uncover this problem are available. Further, the cost of discovery bids is minimized by the HCP and playing strength of the hand (if partner bids 3♠, 3NT probably makes).

The corollary to this is that with a weaker 3145, 2♣ is the only good option. In other words, it is the overall strength that gives the breathing space necessary for the spade-length distortion.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jan 17 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

My option is 1♠, but this is admittedly a situation where partnership discussion is critical, and I have discussed this situation with most partners.

The decision we reached was based upon concerns that 1NT is bad with a stiff heart, that 2♦ way overstaes the strength, especially considering the high maximum range when 2♣ on a minor two-suiter is so unappealing, and that 1NT far understates the strength.

1♠, on the other hand, is a call that is expected to have this strength as a possibility. If the 3145 pattern is allowed, then avenues to uncover this problem are available. Further, the cost of discovery bids is minimized by the HCP and playing strength of the hand (if partner bids 3♠, 3NT probably makes).

The corollary to this is that with a weaker 3145, 2♣ is the only good option. In other words, it is the overall strength that gives the breathing space necessary for the spade-length distortion.

I don't make prepared 1♠ bids anymore. With this pattern, if the hand is strong enough to reverse I will, and if its not strong enough, I should be able to rebid 1N .

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Jan 17 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

I don't make prepared 1♠ bids anymore. With this pattern, if the hand is strong enough to reverse I will, and if its not strong enough, I should be able to rebid 1N .

Gack.... you are going to rebid 1NT with this monster? How will partner ever know? (Yes, I know you choose to reverse, so I am not exactly sure where this 1NT rebid talk came from.)

After 1♣-1♥ this is closer to a 2NT rebid than a 1NT rebid. Here, I would just rebid 2♣. If partner can not take another call, we maybe high enough.

[kenrexford]

It is a fair and reasonable decision to opt between 1NT and a reverse, I suppose. The problem with a 16-count is fairly simple to articulate, though.

If you would bid 1NT, then you will miss game on 26 HCP unless partner invites with 10. If he invites with 10, you will play a lot of 21-point 2NT contracts if partner can open with 11 HCP's.

If you reverse with 16, then your range is probably something like this as a minimum, up to quite strong (22?). That is unwieldy for partner. Sure, a weak 2♠ convention will help stop at 2NT, but then partner might have 6 HCP's, in which case you get to declare 2NT, again, on 22 HCP's.

To each his own, though.

[SoTired]

I voted for 2D, but can understand the 2C bidder's pessimistic outlook because responder bid our singleton.

What I can't understand is the 1S bidders. Unless you specifically have "1C 1H 1S = may be 3-card suit" rule in your partnership agreement, I think bidding a 3-card major is a mistake. I have been known to fudge a card on my minor suits, but I will not fudge a card on my major suits.

[mike777]

I would reverse, but close, if not I would open 1D and rebid 2clubs which has its own problems.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jan 17 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

It is a fair and reasonable decision to opt between 1NT and a reverse, I suppose. 

No, it is not: it is not even in the same universe. This comment suggests an utter failing of any appreciation of bidding theory.